The finding
There is no national state mold licensing system, and the gap between what is published and what the statutes say is wide. Across the 50 states and the District of Columbia we classified 51 jurisdictions into five categories from primary legal sources. Only 5 issue a state occupational licence for mould work. 42 have no programme at all. The remaining 4 regulate by a route that is not a licence: a statutory requirement to hold a private certification, a general contractor classification, or conduct standards with no register behind them. Six states are routinely misreported, and the corrections are set out below.
Headline figures
In this report
Key findings
- Only 5 of 51 jurisdictions issue a state occupational licence for mould assessment or remediation: Florida, Texas, New York, Louisiana and Tennessee.
- 42 jurisdictions have no mould programme of any kind, which is 82% of the country.
- New Hampshire is the only state that mandates a private certification instead of issuing its own credential, under RSA 310-A:189-b, and it covers residential assessment only.
- Kentucky regulates conduct without licensing anyone. 40 KAR 2:330 is administered by the Attorney General’s Office of Consumer Protection and imposes standards drawn from IICRC S520 2nd edition. A keyword search of the regulation for licence, register and permit returns no matches.
- Maine’s entire mould statute is a single section. 10 M.R.S. ch. 217-A s. 1480 creates a conflict-of-interest disclosure duty and nothing else: no licence, no register, no administering agency.
- Virginia, Maryland, Illinois and Arkansas are all commonly listed as licensing states and none of them is. Two repealed their rules, one never funded its programme, and one has a statute that is not in force.
- A searchable public roster exists in only 6 jurisdictions. Everywhere else, verifying a credential means asking the contractor for paperwork.
- Florida separates the assessor licence from the remediator licence by design, under s. 3 ch. 2007-235, to remove the incentive to find mould and then sell the removal.
The five categories we apply
Published lists treat mould regulation as a yes-or-no question, which is why they get it wrong. A state can require something enforceable without issuing a licence, and a state can have a licensing statute on the books that nobody administers. These five categories separate those cases.
| Category | Definition | What it means in practice |
|---|---|---|
| A. State-issued occupational licence | The state itself issues a credential to a named person or firm for mould work | A state register exists and can be checked |
| B. Private certification mandated by statute | Statute requires a credential from an accredited private body, not from the state | There is no state register; the certifying body holds the record |
| C. Folded into a general contractor classification | Mould work sits inside a broader abatement or contractor classification | The licensee is searchable but the licence is not mould-specific |
| D. Enforceable standards without licensure | Rules govern how the work is done, with no credential requirement | Enforcement runs through consumer protection, not a licensing board |
| E. No programme | No mould-specific licence, registration or enforceable standard | Nothing to verify at state level |
How the 51 jurisdictions split
The shape of that distribution is the headline. Mould regulation is not a patchwork of different licensing schemes. It is 42 jurisdictions with nothing, a handful with a real licence, and a small set of one-off arrangements that resist being tabulated. For a background explainer on what each regulated state asks of a contractor, see our article on state mold licensing. This report is the register behind it.
The full classification table
| State | Category | Agency | Statute or rule | Public roster | Evidence level |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Florida | A. State-issued occupational licence | Dept of Business and Professional Regulation | Ch. 468 Pt. XVI F.S.; FAC Ch. 61-31 | Yes | Primary |
| Louisiana | A. State-issued occupational licence | State Licensing Board for Contractors | La. R.S. 37:2150.1 et seq. (mold remediation contractor) | Yes | Primary |
| New York | A. State-issued occupational licence | Dept of Labor | N.Y. Lab. Law art. 32 ss. 930-938; 12 NYCRR 325 | Yes | Primary |
| Tennessee | A. State-issued occupational licence | Dept of Commerce and Insurance | Tenn. Code Ann. s. 62-6-501 et seq. | Yes | Primary (archived) |
| Texas | A. State-issued occupational licence | Dept of Licensing and Regulation (TDLR) | Tex. Occ. Code Ch. 1958; 16 TAC Ch. 78 | Yes | Primary |
| New Hampshire | B. Private certification mandated by statute | Office of Professional Licensure and Certification | RSA 310-A:189-b (third-party certification, assessment only) | No | Primary |
| Mississippi | C. Folded into a general contractor classification | State Board of Contractors (MSBOC) | Miss. Code Ann. s. 31-3-1; classification S715 | Yes | Primary |
| Kentucky | D. Enforceable standards without licensure | Attorney General, Office of Consumer Protection | 40 KAR 2:330 (conduct standards, IICRC S520 2nd ed.) | No | Primary |
| Maine | D. Enforceable standards without licensure | No administering agency named in statute | 10 M.R.S. ch. 217-A s. 1480 (conflict-of-interest disclosure) | No | Primary |
| Alabama | E. No programme | No mould-specific agency identified | No mould licensing statute or rule located in the state code | No | Primary |
| Alaska | E. No programme | No mould-specific agency identified | No mould licensing statute or rule located in the state code | No | Primary |
| Arizona | E. No programme | No mould-specific agency identified | No mould licensing statute or rule located in the state code | No | Primary |
| Arkansas | E. No programme | Advisory board only (licensure repealed) | Act 1467 of 2009 repealed 2011; Act 341 of 2011 advisory board | No | Primary |
| California | E. No programme | No mould-specific agency identified | No mould licensing statute or rule located in the state code | No | Primary |
| Colorado | E. No programme | No mould-specific agency identified | No mould licensing statute or rule located in the state code | No | Primary |
| Connecticut | E. No programme | No mould-specific agency identified | No mould licensing statute or rule located in the state code | No | Primary |
| Delaware | E. No programme | No mould-specific agency identified | No mould licensing statute or rule located in the state code | No | Primary |
| District of Columbia | E. No programme | No mould-specific agency identified | No mould licensing statute or rule located in the state code | No | Primary |
| Georgia | E. No programme | No mould-specific agency identified | No mould licensing statute or rule located in the state code | No | Primary |
| Hawaii | E. No programme | No mould-specific agency identified | No mould licensing statute or rule located in the state code | No | Primary |
| Idaho | E. No programme | No mould-specific agency identified | No mould licensing statute or rule located in the state code | No | Primary |
| Illinois | E. No programme | Dept of Public Health (enacted, rules not adopted) | 225 ILCS 100 (mould provisions not in force) | No | Primary |
| Indiana | E. No programme | No mould-specific agency identified | No mould licensing statute or rule located in the state code | No | Primary |
| Iowa | E. No programme | No mould-specific agency identified | No mould licensing statute or rule located in the state code | No | Primary |
| Kansas | E. No programme | No mould-specific agency identified | No mould licensing statute or rule located in the state code | No | Primary |
| Maryland | E. No programme | No administering agency (programme unfunded) | Mold Remediation Services Act; subtitle terminated 1 July 2019 | No | Primary |
| Massachusetts | E. No programme | No mould-specific agency identified | No mould licensing statute or rule located in the state code | No | Primary |
| Michigan | E. No programme | No mould-specific agency identified | No mould licensing statute or rule located in the state code | No | Primary |
| Minnesota | E. No programme | No mould-specific agency identified | No mould licensing statute or rule located in the state code | No | Primary |
| Missouri | E. No programme | No mould-specific agency identified | No mould licensing statute or rule located in the state code | No | Primary |
| Montana | E. No programme | No mould-specific agency identified | No mould licensing statute or rule located in the state code | No | Primary |
| Nebraska | E. No programme | No mould-specific agency identified | No mould licensing statute or rule located in the state code | No | Primary |
| Nevada | E. No programme | No mould-specific agency identified | No mould licensing statute or rule located in the state code | No | Primary |
| New Jersey | E. No programme | No mould-specific agency identified | No mould licensing statute or rule located in the state code | No | Primary |
| New Mexico | E. No programme | No mould-specific agency identified | No mould licensing statute or rule located in the state code | No | Primary |
| North Carolina | E. No programme | No mould-specific agency identified | No mould licensing statute or rule located in the state code | No | Primary |
| North Dakota | E. No programme | No mould-specific agency identified | No mould licensing statute or rule located in the state code | No | Primary |
| Ohio | E. No programme | No mould-specific agency identified | No mould licensing statute or rule located in the state code | No | Primary |
| Oklahoma | E. No programme | State Dept of Health (no authority asserted) | No enabling statute; OSDH states it has no authority over mould | No | Primary |
| Oregon | E. No programme | No mould-specific agency identified | No mould licensing statute or rule located in the state code | No | Primary |
| Pennsylvania | E. No programme | No mould-specific agency identified | No mould licensing statute or rule located in the state code | No | Primary |
| Rhode Island | E. No programme | Dept of Health (no authority asserted) | No enabling statute; RIDOH states it cannot intervene | No | Primary |
| South Carolina | E. No programme | No mould-specific agency identified | No mould licensing statute or rule located in the state code | No | Primary |
| South Dakota | E. No programme | No mould-specific agency identified | No mould licensing statute or rule located in the state code | No | Primary |
| Utah | E. No programme | No mould-specific agency identified | No mould licensing statute or rule located in the state code | No | Primary |
| Vermont | E. No programme | No mould-specific agency identified | No mould licensing statute or rule located in the state code | No | Primary |
| Virginia | E. No programme | Board for Asbestos, Lead and Home Inspectors | 18VAC15-60 repealed; HB 2195 (2025) directs a study only | No | Primary |
| Washington | E. No programme | No mould-specific agency identified | No mould licensing statute or rule located in the state code | No | Primary |
| West Virginia | E. No programme | No mould-specific agency identified | No mould licensing statute or rule located in the state code | No | Primary |
| Wisconsin | E. No programme | No mould-specific agency identified | No mould licensing statute or rule located in the state code | No | Primary |
| Wyoming | E. No programme | No mould-specific agency identified | No mould licensing statute or rule located in the state code | No | Primary |
Corrections to the published record
These are the cases where widely circulated state-by-state lists disagree with the primary source. In each row the correction is what the statute, rule or agency page actually says. This section exists because the errors are self-replicating: one list copies another, and a repealed regulation stays in circulation for years.
| State | What published lists say | What the primary source says |
|---|---|---|
| Virginia | Listed as a licensing state | No mould programme. 18VAC15-60, the former mould regulation, is repealed. The relevant board is the Board for Asbestos, Lead and Home Inspectors, whose title no longer includes mould. HB 2195 (2025) directed the Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation to study licensure, which is a study, not a licence. |
| Maryland | Listed as a licensing state | No active programme. The Mold Remediation Services Act was never funded, and the subtitle terminated on 1 July 2019. There is no registry and no issuing authority. |
| Illinois | Listed as a licensing or registration state | Enacted but not in force. The Illinois Department of Public Health states that until implementing rules are adopted, mould remediation professionals are not required to register. No registry exists to search. |
| Arkansas | Listed as a licensing state | Repealed. Act 1467 of 2009 licensed mould investigators and remediators; it was repealed in 2011. Act 341 of 2011 created an advisory board that issues non-binding guidance only. |
| Texas | Programme attributed to the Department of State Health Services | The programme transferred from DSHS to the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation on 1 November 2017. The old dshs.texas.gov/mold path now returns a 404. Any list citing DSHS as the Texas mould authority is reproducing a stale source. |
| New Hampshire | Listed as issuing a state mould licence | The state issues no mould credential. RSA 310-A:189-b requires a private third-party certification from ACAC or another body accredited by ANSI, CESB or NCCA, and it applies to residential mould assessment only. Remediation is unregulated. HB 1126 (2026) would have repealed the requirement: it passed the House on 19 February 2026 and was killed in the Senate on 23 March 2026. |
| Mississippi | Listed as having a mould licence | There is no mould-specific licence. Mould work falls under Mississippi State Board of Contractors classification S715, Commercial Hazardous Material Abatement, Clean Up, Removal or Remediation, which carried 83 active licensees when we read the register. |
The Texas case is the most instructive, because nothing about the programme lapsed. The mould programme moved from the Department of State Health Services to the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation on 1 November 2017, and the old agency path now returns a 404. A list that still names DSHS is not describing a defunct programme; it is describing a live one at the wrong address, which sends a contractor to a dead end.
Why the vendor lists are wrong
Mould training and certification vendors publish state-requirement pages, and those pages rank well. When we compared them against the statutes, they contradicted the primary sources on Virginia, Maryland, Illinois and Mississippi: Virginia and Maryland were shown as licensing states after their rules had gone, Illinois was shown as a registration state although the rules are not adopted, and Mississippi was shown as having a mould licence rather than a general hazardous-material classification. Our guide to mold remediation certification compares those private credentials on each issuing body’s own rules.
We did not use any vendor page as a source for this report. Every classification above rests on a statute, an administrative rule, or a statement published by the agency that would administer the programme. Where the live host refused automated access we read the same primary document from an archived snapshot and labelled it accordingly: 1 of 51 rows carry that label.
There is a reason the incentive runs this way. A page that lists a state as regulated supports selling a course for that state. We have no course to sell, so the classification can say that 42 jurisdictions require nothing.
| Evidence level | What it means | Rows |
|---|---|---|
| Primary | The statute, rule or agency page was retrieved live | 50 |
| Primary (archived) | The live host refused automated access, so the same primary document was read from an archived snapshot | 1 |
| Vendor or aggregator page | Not used as a source anywhere in this report | 0 |
Where a public roster exists
| State | Roster | Format | What it contains |
|---|---|---|---|
| Florida | Yes | Weekly CSV from DBPR | Licensee name, city, county, licence type, status, dates |
| Texas | Yes | Per-category CSV from TDLR | One file per licence category across eight categories |
| New York | Yes | Socrata datasets, CSV and API | Separate contractor and individual registers with status |
| Louisiana | Yes | Board search interface | Licensed contractors by classification |
| Tennessee | Yes | Department licence search | Licensee lookup, no documented bulk export |
| Mississippi | Yes | Board register, classification S715 | Hazardous material abatement licensees, not mould-specific |
| New Hampshire | No | None at state level | The accrediting private body holds the record, not the state |
| Kentucky | No | None | Standards are enforced on complaint, no credential is issued |
| All category E states | No | None | No programme to publish |
Three of these rosters are published as bulk files rather than search-only interfaces, which is what makes a density analysis possible at all. We computed one from them in our companion report on mold licensee density.
Method
How we counted. We classified all 50 states and the District of Columbia by reading primary legal sources: state statutes, administrative codes, and pages published by the agency that administers or would administer a mould programme. For each jurisdiction we recorded the category, the administering agency, the statute or rule citation, whether a public roster exists, and the evidence level. Evidence level is Primary where the source was retrieved live, and Primary (archived) where the live host refused automated access and we read the same document from an archived snapshot; 1 rows carry the archived label. A category E classification is a negative finding, reached when no mould-specific licensing statute or rule was located in the state code or on the state’s professional licensing index. We used no training vendor, certification body or aggregator page as a source. All retrievals were made on 23 September 2026. This report is not legal advice.
Reproduce this
Reproduce this
- Endpoint
State statutes, administrative codes and agency pages- Query
Per state: locate the mould licensing statute or rule in the state code, then confirm current force on the administering agency page- Rows retrieved
- 51 jurisdictions classified
- Retrieved
- 23 September 2026
The checks that produce the corrections are short enough to repeat. For Virginia, search the Virginia Administrative Code for 18VAC15-60 and read the repeal note, then read the board name. For Maryland, read the termination date on the Mold Remediation Services Act subtitle. For Illinois, read the Department of Public Health mould page for the sentence about registration not being required until rules are adopted. For Kentucky, retrieve 40 KAR 2:330 and search the text for licens, register and permit. For Texas, request dshs.texas.gov/mold and observe the 404, then locate the programme under TDLR. Primary sources move; the citation is stable, the URL often is not.
What this does not show
What this does not show
- State level only. Several cities and counties impose their own requirements on mould or abatement work. A category E state is not the same as an unregulated jobsite.
- Adjacent licences still apply. A state with no mould programme may still require a general contractor licence, an asbestos accreditation, or a business registration for the same work. The classification is about mould-specific regulation.
- A negative finding is harder to prove than a positive one. Category E means we located no mould licensing statute or rule, not that no instrument can exist anywhere in the state code.
- Primary sources move. Statutes are amended and agency pages are reorganised. Every classification is as at 23 September 2026 and should be re-checked against the citation before being relied on.
- No enforcement data. We classify what the rules require. We have no data on how often any of it is enforced, or on complaint and disciplinary volumes.
- This is not legal advice. It is a classification of published legal sources. Anyone deciding what a specific job requires should read the cited statute and ask the named agency.
Most quotable figures
- Only 5 of 51 US jurisdictions issue a state occupational licence for mould work: Florida, Texas, New York, Louisiana and Tennessee (primary statutes, 23 September 2026).
- 42 states and the District of Columbia have no mould programme of any kind, which is 82% of the country.
- Virginia’s mould regulation 18VAC15-60 is repealed and the board is now the Board for Asbestos, Lead and Home Inspectors, yet Virginia is still widely listed as a mould licensing state.
- Maryland’s Mold Remediation Services Act was never funded and the subtitle terminated on 1 July 2019, so the state issues no mould credential.
Questions this report answers
How many states require a mold licence?
5 states issue their own occupational licence for mould work: Florida, Texas, New York, Louisiana and Tennessee. New Hampshire requires a private accredited certification instead of issuing a licence, and Mississippi covers mould inside a general hazardous-material contractor classification. 42 jurisdictions require nothing mould-specific.
Does Virginia license mould remediation?
No. 18VAC15-60 is repealed and the relevant board is the Board for Asbestos, Lead and Home Inspectors. HB 2195 in 2025 directed the Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation to study licensure, which did not create one.
Does Maryland license mould remediation?
No. The Mold Remediation Services Act was never funded and the subtitle terminated on 1 July 2019. No registry and no issuing authority exist.
Is mould remediation registration required in Illinois?
Not currently. The Illinois Department of Public Health states that until implementing rules are adopted, mould remediation professionals are not required to register, and no registry exists.
Which agency runs the Texas mould programme?
The Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation. The programme moved there from the Department of State Health Services on 1 November 2017, and the old DSHS mould page now returns a 404.
What does New Hampshire actually require?
RSA 310-A:189-b requires a residential mould assessor to hold a third-party certification from ACAC or another body accredited by ANSI, CESB or NCCA. The state issues no credential of its own and remediation is unregulated. HB 1126 in 2026 would have repealed the requirement: it passed the House on 19 February 2026 and was killed in the Senate on 23 March 2026.
Can I reuse this classification table?
Yes. The classification and tables are released under CC BY 4.0 with attribution to Remediation Insider. The underlying statutes and rules are public documents.
How to cite
Remediation Insider. The State Mold Licensing Map: What 50 States Actually Require. https://remediationinsider.com/state-mold-licensing-map/ (retrieved 2 October 2026).
Data and tables in this report are released under CC BY 4.0. Attribution: Remediation Insider.
Sources
- Florida Statutes Chapter 468 Part XVI, enacted by s. 3 ch. 2007-235, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 61-31. Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation.
- Texas Occupations Code Chapter 1958 and 16 Texas Administrative Code Chapter 78. Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation; programme transferred from the Department of State Health Services on 1 November 2017.
- New York Labor Law article 32, sections 930 to 938, and 12 NYCRR 325. New York State Department of Labor.
- Louisiana Revised Statutes 37:2150.1 et seq. Louisiana State Licensing Board for Contractors.
- Tennessee Code Annotated section 62-6-501 et seq. Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance.
- Virginia Administrative Code 18VAC15-60 (repealed) and Virginia HB 2195 (2025). Board for Asbestos, Lead and Home Inspectors.
- Maryland Mold Remediation Services Act; subtitle terminated 1 July 2019.
- 225 ILCS 100 and the Illinois Department of Public Health mould page stating that registration is not required until rules are adopted.
- Arkansas Act 1467 of 2009 (repealed 2011) and Act 341 of 2011 establishing an advisory board.
- 40 KAR 2:330, administered by the Kentucky Attorney General’s Office of Consumer Protection, adopting standards based on IICRC S520 2nd edition.
- 10 M.R.S. chapter 217-A section 1480 (mould conflict-of-interest disclosure).
- New Hampshire RSA 310-A:189-b and HB 1126 (2026), House passage 19 February 2026, Senate action 23 March 2026.
- Mississippi Code Annotated section 31-3-1 and Mississippi State Board of Contractors classification S715, Commercial Hazardous Material Abatement, Clean Up, Removal or Remediation.
- Oklahoma State Department of Health statement that it does not have authority over mould complaints; Rhode Island Department of Health statement that no Rhode Island statute or regulation gives it authority to intervene in mould disputes.
- No survey, interview or site visit was conducted for this report. Every classification is read from a published statute, administrative rule or state agency page.