In our published article (Argall et al. 2017), we reported observations of waves due to newborn interstellar pickup He + observed by the Voyager 2 spacecraft at ∼30 au. Our recent efforts to continue this study revealed to us a significant error in Table 3 of the published article. Here we correct that table for the sake of future work by ourselves and others.Past analyses of magnetic waves due to newborn interstellar pickup ions observed in interplanetary space have revealed that the waves are most often observed when the background fluctuation levels are low (Cannon et al. 2014;Aggarwal et al. 2016;Fisher et al. 2016). Our recent report of two such wave events observed by the Voyager 2 spacecraft on DOYs 172-174 of 1989 when the spacecraft was at 29.6 au, 3°. 9 of heliographic latitude, and 205°of heliographic longitude concluded that the these two specific wave events were seen when the background spectrum was dominated by instrument noise. We supported that claim by first analyzing the background spectrum and then comparing it to 14 spectra taken from nearby times when waves were not observed. In that analysis, we computed the spectral index using a spectral fit of the power spectrum, assuming P(f)∼f n . The analysis was performed over two frequency intervals, and then the power at two prescribed frequencies (1 and 10 mHz) was computed using the spectral fits. We showed that when the spectral index of the total power spectrum became shallow (approximately n=−1), the power levels would asymptote to a common value. This value was the lowest value that the spectrum reached throughout the set of spectra studied. We also showed that lowest power level to be consistent with preflight instrument noise tests of the Voyager magnetometer.Unfortunately, there is a critical typographical error in that table. Although the analysis was performed correctly, the two stated frequencies used in the analysis were each an order of magnitude larger than what was actually used. Table 3 of Argall et al. (2017) states that we fit the background power levels at 1 and 10 mHz, when in reality they were fit at 0.1 and 1 mHz. In all other respects, the paper is correct as presented.In the interest of presenting a correct analysis for future citation, we present the corrected table here. In order to provide a more complete and useful analysis, we here present the fit power for 0.1, 1, and 10 mHz.We regret the error and hope it has not caused any confusion.