Guidelines for the Investigation of Noise Complaints Pursuant to the State of New Jersey Noise Control Code (NJAC 7:29) and the Model Noise Ordinance

February 4, 2022 Page 1

Guidelines for the Investigation of Noise Complaints Pursuant to the State of

New Jersey Noise Control Regulation (N.J.A.C. 7:29) and the Model Noise

Control Ordinance

I. Introduction

These Guidelines have been developed to ensure consistency for the investigation of noise

violations pursuant to the State of New Jersey Noise Control Regulation (State Code) and the

Model Noise Control Ordinance (Model Ordinance) and are based on New Jersey Department of

Environmental Protection (NJDEP) policies and procedures. The Model Ordinance was

developed by the NJDEP and the State of New Jersey Noise Control Council (Council) and is

made available for adoption by municipalities which desire to have increased local authority for

noise enforcement and expanded enforcement provisions as compared to the State Code.

The Noise Control Act, N.J.S.A. 13:1G-1 et seq., was enacted in 1971 (The Act). The Act

provides, at N.J.S.A. 13:1G-2, that the people of New Jersey should be ensured an environment

that is free from noise which unnecessarily degrades the quality of life; that the levels of noise in

communities have reached a degree which endangers the health, safety and welfare of the people

of the State; and that this threat can be abated by the adoption and enforcement of noise

standards.

The Act also created a Noise Control Council (Council) that consists of 13 members; nine of

whom are appointed by the Governor and four of whom are designees from specific departments

in State government (N.J.S.A. 13:1G-17). Among other responsibilities, the Council is

authorized to study the codes, rules and regulations promulgated by the NJDEP with regard to

noise control and to make recommendations to the Commissioner of the NJDEP for

improvements. The Council is also authorized to hold public hearings concerning existing noise

control statutes and regulations as well as the state of the art and technical capabilities and

limitations in noise control, and to report its recommendations to the Commissioner of the

NJDEP. In addition, the Council has the authority to veto the adoption, amendment or repeal of

any rule before the Commissioner promulgates it (N.J.S.A. 13:1G-18).

“In the early 1970s, the Department of Health, the NJDEP, and the Council worked together to

draft standards for the levels of sound emanating from stationary industrial and commercial

operations. In 1974, the NJDEP promulgated these standards at N.J.A.C. 7:29, entitled, Noise

Control (State Code). The standards developed are health-based and are designed to prevent the

deleterious physical effects that may result from exposure to excessive noise. The standards were

based on information dealing with speech interference and sleep interruption. Specifically,

daytime sound levels were determined by speech interference criteria, while nighttime levels

were dictated by sleep interruption information.”

The State of New Jersey Noise Control Regulation, N.J.A.C. 7:29, authorized by the Noise

Control Act of 1971 (N.J.S.A. 13:1G, et seq.) provides the basis for noise compliance and

Derived from the NJ Register (42 N.J.R. 3024(a)) as part of the background information provided by NJDEP for the

re-adoption of N.J.A.C. 7:29, December 20, 2010.

February 4, 2022 Page 2

enforcement throughout the State of New Jersey. The State Code is subject to re-adoption every

seven years. This time schedule is intended to allow for periodic modifications to the regulation

in response to community issues and changes in noise control strategies and technologies.

II. The State Code as compared to the Model Ordinance

The Model Ordinance is provided by the NJDEP as guidance for municipalities to follow when

adopting a noise control ordinance pursuant to the State’s Noise Control Act and seeking to

establish specific decibel-denominated performance standards to control noise. All such

ordinances must be submitted for written approval to the NJDEP, including an ordinance that is

identical to the Model Ordinance.

The Model Ordinance, if adopted by a local jurisdiction,

allows for additional provisions to control noise in their community while ensuring consistency

with the State Code.

The Model Ordinance differs from the State Code in that it allows for additional source

categories such as residential, public space, and motor vehicles on a public right-of-way. It also

provides for enforcement of noise for multi-family and multi-use facilities. The other significant

difference is that the permissible limits in the Model Ordinance are slightly more restrictive in

that they must not be equaled or exceeded; whereas, the limits in the State Code must not be

exceeded.

III. Guidance Policies and Procedures

The policies and procedures outlined in these Guidelines are meant to provide clarification to the

State Code and Model Ordinance. While the State Code provides detailed "Procedures For the

Determination Of Noise From Stationary Sources" at N.J.A.C. 7:29-2, the NJDEP has made

further clarifications and interpretations of Acceptable Test Methods and Measurement

Principals pursuant to the authority granted at N.J.A.C. 7:29-2.2 and N.J.A.C. 7:29-2.3.

These guidelines have been developed by the New Jersey Noise Control Council in cooperation

with the Rutgers Noise Technical Assistance Center and the NJDEP and were, in part, in

response to inquiries by the regulated and regulatory communities.

The policies and procedures contained herein have been incorporated into the curriculum of the

NJDEP sanctioned professional training course, Community Noise Enforcement Certification

offered at Rutgers University and, as such, this information is disseminated to the regulatory

community who are statutorily required to attend this course. The NJDEP regularly reviews and

§13:1G-21 (Noise Control Act of 1971). Nothing in this act or in any code, rules, regulations, or orders

promulgated pursuant thereto shall preclude the right of any governing body of a municipality or county board of

health, subject to the approval of the department, to adopt ordinances, resolutions or regulations which establish

specific standards for the level or duration of community noise more stringent than this act or any code, rules, or

regulations promulgated pursuant thereto.

§7:29-2.11 (State Code). Qualifications of Enforcement Personnel. For Purposes of this chapter, an employee

representing an authorized enforcement agency shall be considered qualified to make noise measurements and

enforce the State’s Noise rules or a municipal noise ordinance approved by the Department, as the case may be, if

such person completes a noise certification course, and is recertified, at least once every two years, at a noise

certification course which is offered by the Department of Environmental Sciences of Cook College, Rutgers, the

State University.

February 4, 2022 Page 3

approves the course content. Some of the policies and procedures, in these Guidelines, have

been, in the past, provided on a case-by-case basis, in response to a specific line of inquiry. By

providing these policies and procedures in a single document it will greatly improve the

dissemination of this information to all interested parties.

These Guidelines reflect current NJDEP compliance and enforcement policies and procedures.

The Guidelines may be updated from time to time and the most recent version made available on

the NJDEP website at: www.nj.gov/dep/enforcement/noise-intro.html.

The specific policies and procedures of these Guidelines are as follows:

A. Measurement Duration (“2-10-30 minute rule”)

The “2-10-30 minute rule” (The Rule) refers to the minimum duration for the measurement of

the neighborhood residual sound level, the total sound level and minimum time the investigator

is to be onsite in association with the investigation, respectively. This Rule has been taught in

the Community Noise Enforcement Certification course for many decades.

It has long been the policy of the NJDEP that the measurement duration for the determination of

the Neighborhood Residual Sound Level shall be a minimum of 2 minutes and the measurement

duration for the determination of the Total Sound Level shall be a minimum of 10 minutes

. The

measurements need not be continuous so long as the cumulative measurement time meets or

exceeds the minimum measurement durations stated above. The Rule also requires that the

investigator to be onsite in association with the investigation for a minimum of 30 minutes.

While the State Code requires that the aggregate duration of Total Sound Level measurements

must be 10 minutes, it does not specify the duration of each sampling period. If a sound source is

steady state, it is recommended that the investigator conduct five 2-minute samples. If a sound

under investigation is not steady state, the length of a measurement sample should be chosen

relative to the characteristics of the source (i.e., duty cycle – duration and frequency of noise

events). If a source's emissions are cyclical, at least one sample should be conducted entirely

within the elevated portion of the cycle, so long as the sample duration is greater than one

second, as is required to be classified as "continuous airborne sound."

The Rule does not apply to C-scale measurements. See Section L of this document and the

Model Ordinance for additional details regarding C-scale measurements.

§7:29-2.9(b)1.viii (State Code). Continue the test over a period of time sufficient to ensure that the sound levels

measured are typical of the source under observation but in no event should the duration of the test be less than

10 minutes, unless the duration or duty cycle of the sound source under observation is less than 10 minutes.

§7:29-1.1 "Continuous airborne sound" means sound that is measured by the slow response setting of a sound

level meter in accordance with provisions of N.J.A.C. 7:29-2, and which lasts one second or longer.

February 4, 2022 Page 4

B. Duration of Exceedances Constituting a Violation

Calculation of the corrected source sound level is conducted pursuant to the requirements of the

State Code at 7:29-2.10. If the corrected source sound level from any sample exceeds both the

permissible sound level limit and the neighborhood residual sound level, then the source is in

violation of the State Code, regardless of whether other samples yield corrected source sound

levels that do not exceed the limit. While there is the requirement for 10 minutes of total sound

measurements, the source does not have to exceed the permissible sound level limit for this

entire duration to be found in violation.

C. Extraneous Sounds and Logged Measurements

Extraneous sound sources (i.e., intermittent sounds not from the source under investigation such

as aircraft, a dog barking, a loud vehicle in otherwise steady traffic, vehicles on a street, etc.)

must be excluded

from the measurements of total and neighborhood residual sound levels.

When an investigator utilizes the logging function of their sound level meter, if so equipped, the

minimum and maximum logged measurements alone are not acceptable, as extraneous noise

events must be excluded

. This is particularly important when measuring the Neighborhood

Residual Sound Level. A logged maximum sound level (Lmax) must not be used to represent the

Neighborhood Residual Sound Level if any extraneous sounds occurred during the logged

measurement period. If logged sound level measurements are to be collected, field notes must be

made in order to exclude extraneous sounds, and if possible, the "back erase" function should be

employed, if the meter is so equipped.

D. Selection of Receptor Location(s) to Assess Compliance

The State Code specifies that the location to determine regulatory compliance is “at or within the

property line of any affected person.”

The State Code also specifies that “the investigator shall explore the vicinity of the suspected

source on foot to identify any other sound sources which could affect measurements, to establish

the appropriate location and character of the main sound sources, and to select suitable points

from which to measure the sound from the suspected source and the neighborhood residual

sound.”

§7:29-2.9(b)1.vi (State Code. While making sound level measurements, observe whether the meter reading is

increased by extraneous sound sources such as passing vehicles, aircraft flying overhead, barking dogs, etc. In such

cases, postpone the sound measurement until the extraneous sound has abated.

ibid.

§7:29-2.5(a)2 (State Code). Measurements shall be taken at or within the property line of any affected person.

§7:29-1.1 "Affected person" means any person who has registered a noise complaint with an authorized

enforcement agency that he or she is a receptor of noise on a protected property category, and said affected

person has an interest in the protected property category as an owner, tenant, or employee.

§7:29-2.8(a) (State Code). Survey: Prior to taking noise measurements the investigator shall explore the vicinity

of the suspected source on foot to identify any other sound sources which could affect measurements, to establish

the appropriate location and character of the main sound sources, and to select suitable points from which to

measure the sound from the suspected source and the neighborhood residual sound.

February 4, 2022 Page 5

The State Code and Model Ordinance do not explicitly discuss the rationale for determining the

location to assess compliance. However, this policy directs that sound level measurements

should be taken at a location that represents where someone would reasonably recreate, repose

and/or converse.

The point of compliance is generally at the property line of the affected person that is closest to

the source under investigation unless this location is not where recreation, repose or conversation

would reasonably occur.

In some circumstances sound attenuating features, at or near the property line, such as a building,

sound barrier, earthen berm or topographical feature, may result in an “acoustical-shadow” at or

near the property line which may significantly lower the sound level at or near the property line.

In these cases, it is generally not reasonable to conduct measurements within the “acoustical

shadow” since it does not reasonably represent the sound levels received at the property of an

affected person. Sound level measurement(s) conducted farther into the affected person’s

property where the sound levels received from the source under investigation are influenced less

by the sound attenuating features, at or near the property line, may be significantly higher and

such a location would more likely represent a more appropriate location to determine

compliance. It would not be reasonable to simply elevate the microphone of the sound level

meter at a location, at or near the property line, to a height above the sound attenuating feature if

this would not represent a location where recreation, repose or conversation would reasonably

occur. That said, there are circumstances where utilizing an elevated sound level meter

microphone would be appropriate if it represents a location where someone would reasonably

recreate, repose or converse (e.g., elevated porch, balcony, upper floor window).

During daytime hours of 7 AM to 10 PM, the permissible limit of 65 dBA for continuous

airborne sound is applicable. This level is meant to protect speech at a distance of approximately

3 feet (1 meter) at a normal voice level (i.e., no need to elevate the volume of speech due to noise

from the source under investigation when conversing at this distance).

During nighttime hours of 10 PM to 7 AM the permissible limit of 50 dBA for continuous

airborne sound is applicable. This level is meant to protect sleep. The nighttime standard sets an

outdoor permissible sound level of 50 dBA to achieve an indoor goal of 35 dBA which is

conducive to sleep (a difference of 15 dB). A building of standard construction, with windows

partially open, will provide 15 dB (approximate national average) of sound attenuation.

In some cases, it is reasonable to assess compliance with the nighttime standard outside the

window of a residential building since this location may represent the most direct sound path and

the highest sound level, even though it may not be the closest location to the sound source under

investigation. These measurements can be taken from the window itself by extending the sound

level meter or microphone outside the window or extending the microphone to the elevation of

the window from outside the structure. When conducting sound level measurements in close

proximity to a potentially reflective surface (e.g., building façade, window, and sound barrier)

the microphone should be located and oriented to minimize reflected sound. It may not be

Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate

Margin of Safety, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C., March 1974.

February 4, 2022 Page 6

reasonable to utilize a receptor location outside of a window to assess compliance with the

daytime standard since it is not possible to recreate, repose or converse, or otherwise use the

space, outside a window and; furthermore, unlike the nighttime standard, the daytime standard is

not meant to serve as a surrogate for an interior sound level (i.e., to protect sleep). However, if

there is no outdoor location at which to assess compliance with the daytime standard it would not

be appropriate for a facility listed as a source property category to operate unfettered. Therefore,

in this circumstance, a daytime measurement conducted outside a window may be appropriate.

Such a circumstance would likely be associated with a multi-story residential building in which

there are no balconies and the outdoor space(s) at the property, if any, do not reasonably

represent the sound levels at the complainant’s property. If a noise source is also active during

nighttime hours, it would likely be more appropriate to conduct sound level measurements – at

such a time – when the permissible limits are more restrictive.

When a receiving property of an affected person is a commercial property or community service

facility the permissible limit for continuous airborne sound is 65 dBA, at all times, since there is

only a rationale for protection of speech; not sleep. As is the case for an affected person at a

residential property, this policy directs that sound level measurements be taken at a location, at

or within the property line of a commercial property or community services facility, that

represents where someone would reasonably recreate, repose and/or converse. In some

circumstance such a location will not exist. Examples of commercial properties and community

service facilities where compliance with the daytime standard would be warranted to protect

speech may include outdoor areas where workers and/or customers would engage in

conversation on a regular basis. In contrast, examples of commercial properties and community

service facilities where there may not reasonably be an affected person include: commercial

facilities with no outdoor activities such as an office building surrounded by an asphalt parking

lot where there is not a location on the site where a person would reasonably recreate, repose

and/or converse, being that the entire outdoor area is used for purposes such as vehicle parking,

deliveries, trash bin storage; and, a facility that operates noise-generating sources onsite that are

somewhat similar, in terms of their noise impacts.

There are three criteria that should be considered when determining whether to assess the

compliance status for a commercial or community service facility, as a receiving property.

These criteria are:

1. Does the facility have outdoor activities;

2. Is there a need for verbal communications in conjunction with the outdoor operations;

3. Does the facility generate appreciable sound emissions and are those sound emissions

somewhat similar in terms of duration and intensity (e.g., vehicular traffic on-site, HVAC

equipment, outdoor equipment, etc.) to the facility under investigation?

If the receiving facility has outdoor activities and has a need for verbal communication, there

may be a rationale under this policy to assess compliance. However, if the facility generates

sound emissions that are somewhat similar – in terms of duration and intensity – to the facility

under investigation, it may not be reasonable to consider that there is an affected person at the

receiving property.

February 4, 2022 Page 7

The policies and procedures regarding how and where to select receptor location(s) to assess

compliance are applicable to the measurements taken pursuant to all permissible limits of the

State Code and Model Ordinance including Total Sound Levels, Neighborhood Residual Sound

levels, Impulsive Sound Levels and Octave Band Sound Levels.

The selection of a suitable location(s)

, on the property of an affected person, to conduct sound

level measurements is in the discretion of the certified noise investigator based on the provisions

of the State Code and Model Ordinance, the policies and procedures of the NJDEP and the

information provided as part of the curriculum of the NJDEP sanctioned professional training

course, Community Noise Enforcement Certification

offered at Rutgers, the State University.

E. Prospective Compliance -- Land use and zoning issues

Although the State Code and Model Ordinance are cited in numerous local land-use codes, or are

otherwise used as the basis for determining prospective compliance for projects subject to land

use planning approval (e.g., applications before planning or zoning boards), these regulations

were not developed for this purpose. The State Code and Model Ordinance were developed

solely as enforcement regulations to address exceedances of the permissible limits, found in

these regulations, in response to a complaint by an affected person.

The general framework of

noise regulation in the State of New Jersey is based on the concept that an exeedance of the

permissible limits of the State Code and Model Ordinance, are not a violation of either

regulation, absent a complainant. Therefore, to be consistent with these regulations when

determining prospective compliance, it is necessary to consider whether it is reasonable that an

affected person would exist – post-construction – based on the specific circumstances related to

the proposed project under review.

When the State Code or Model Ordinance is utilized to prospectively assess compliance for a

facility that has yet to be constructed or for a facility that is proposing to modify its operations or

facilities, a determination needs to be made as to whether an affected person would reasonably

exist. The policies and procedures discussed in this document – in conjunction with the details