What happened in this inspection
Cal/OSHA opened a complaint inspection of Advanced Packaging Technology of America at 7580 Britannia Ct, San Diego (San Diego County) on Jul 29, 2004. It was a partial inspection focused on health hazards. 35 employees were recorded at the site. Inspectors issued 19 citations (1 serious) and proposed $5,555 in penalties; the current total is $4,575. 2 citations were deleted on appeal and are not counted. The case closed on Oct 9, 2006.
Citations
Each citation names the rule, its classification and the penalty as proposed and as it stands now.
Issued Jan 12, 2005. Proposed $275, current $200. Abatement due Apr 1, 2005, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Jan 12, 2005. Proposed $135, current $100. Abatement due Apr 1, 2005, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Jan 12, 2005. Proposed $135, current $100. Abatement due Apr 1, 2005, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Jan 12, 2005. Proposed $135, current $100. Abatement due Apr 1, 2005, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Jan 12, 2005. Proposed $135, current $100. Abatement due Apr 1, 2005, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Jan 12, 2005. Proposed $135, current $0. Abatement due Apr 1, 2005, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Jan 12, 2005. Proposed $135, current $100. Abatement due Apr 1, 2005, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Jan 12, 2005. Proposed $225, current $100. Abatement due Apr 1, 2005, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Jan 12, 2005. Proposed $275, current $200. Abatement due Apr 1, 2005, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Jan 12, 2005. Proposed $135, current $100. Abatement due Apr 1, 2005, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Jan 12, 2005. Proposed $135, current $100. Abatement due Apr 1, 2005, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Jan 12, 2005. Proposed $135, current $100. Abatement due Apr 1, 2005, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Jan 12, 2005. Proposed $135, current $100. Abatement due Apr 1, 2005, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Jan 12, 2005. Proposed $135, current $100. Abatement due Apr 1, 2005, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Jan 12, 2005. Proposed $275, current $200. Abatement due Apr 1, 2005, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Jan 12, 2005. Proposed $135, current $100. Abatement due Apr 1, 2005, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Jan 12, 2005. Proposed $135, current $100. Abatement due Apr 1, 2005, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Jan 12, 2005. Proposed $275, current $200. Abatement due Apr 1, 2005, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Jan 12, 2005. Proposed $2,475, current $2,475. Abatement due Apr 1, 2005, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Jan 12, 2005. Proposed $135, current $0. Abatement due Apr 1, 2005, completed. Read the rule.
Issued Jan 12, 2005. Proposed $135, current $0. Abatement due Apr 1, 2005, completed. Read the rule.
Your rights
If you worked at this site, the inspection file is a public record once the case closes; request it from the Cal/OSHA district office with activity number 125943936. A worker who reported the hazard, the injury or the inspection and was then fired, demoted or cut has a retaliation claim under Labor Code 6310, one year to file with the Labor Commissioner and longer to sue. Injuries themselves go through workers' compensation. Free, confidential review: (800) 371-3088.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor OSHA enforcement data, inspection 125943936, checked Nov 1, 2026. How to read a record. Back to the safety tracker.
About this data: Records come from the U.S. Department of Labor's OSHA enforcement datasets (inspection, violation, accident and accident injury tables), which carry Cal/OSHA's state-plan inspections alongside federal ones. We load every inspection of a California worksite opened since January 1, 2000 and refresh it weekly. Employer names, addresses and industry codes are as the inspecting office recorded them; similar names are grouped where they clearly refer to the same employer. A citation can be reduced, vacated or withdrawn on appeal, and an inspection can stay open for months, so a record can change. Penalties shown as "current" reflect the latest status in the federal file. This page is public information about the employer's regulatory record, not legal advice and not a statement that any person was harmed or any law broken beyond what the record states.